They will easily blame it on surveillance on Russian activity because there is always surveillance of Russian activity so it's an easy thing to say
and difficult to dispel.

This way they can surveil anyone they want at any time they want and if they get caught, just say. . "Oops, we were watching Russians", because the
Russians are always watching us and we are always watching them.

Rice is the one being outed.
They will give us a path to follow to show us how the illegal part (releasing the identies of masked individuals and classified info to the press)
happened and who did it. She is a link.... maybe the scapegoat.

Oh hey somebody else who isn't angrily mashing their keyboard with every post. Nice to see you.

My take on it is the question during the interview was worded a specific way and the answer was worded a specific way, and it was entirely
intentional.

I have a hard time believing that this report about Russian interference in the election was put on Rice's desk and she needed to know names of
Americans to gauge for herself whether it was important or not. That excuse just stinks to high hell for me.

Is it possible that she simply wanted to be sure before she took it to the President? I suppose, but I can't imagine she didn't want those names
simply for the sake of having them, if nothing else. It's just extraordinary to me that a report like that got to her desk and she had to
question how important it really was.

1) Rice denies knowing anything at all regarding the unmasking.
2) Story breaks implicating her as the actual requestor to unmask.
3) Rice, "Yeah, so what?"
4) Gryphon66 continues to defend. That about sum it up?

Oh hey somebody else who isn't angrily mashing their keyboard with every post. Nice to see you.

My take on it is the question during the interview was worded a specific way and the answer was worded a specific way, and it was entirely
intentional.

I have a hard time believing that this report about Russian interference in the election was put on Rice's desk and she needed to know names of
Americans to gauge for herself whether it was important or not. That excuse just stinks to high hell for me.

Is it possible that she simply wanted to be sure before she took it to the President? I suppose, but I can't imagine she didn't want those names
simply for the sake of having them, if nothing else. It's just extraordinary to me that a report like that got to her desk and she had to
question how important it really was.

It's the Potomac Tango. Of course the questions and answers are staged to give the impression that nothing was done for political reasons.

But I wholeheartedly agree. This was about on par with Augustus' interview thread. The only thing missing was the interviewer admitting that not only
was it time to play softball, but that the interviewer was also carrying Rice's water.

At some point you all will realize that our govt is CORRUPT and there are NO clean hands. Since we are talking current events and VERY recent
history.. the amount of corruption on the left is staggering. Since they were just recently in power for 8 years.. the Left has outted themselves at
every turn. To deny it is being willfully blind because youre team or gods have fallen. IMO the Right is no less corrupt. If breaking a few eggs on
either side ( right now the left and their BS) means we expose some "business as usual" DC BS... so be it. Rice is going down. So many more to
break...

Media has always been Biased-Propaganda-Outlets for both parties, this is not a new phenomenon, but, the media is now afraid that this could be the
first time a political regime refuses "Free Press" and stifles the Media-Propaganda power structure

1. Do you find it suspicious that Flynn lied about his communications with Kislyak?

2. Do you find it suspicious that multiple Trump spokespeople and Trump himself blatantly lied about communications between Russian officials and the
Trump campaign?

3. Do you think that Nunes should have recused himself considering his position as a member of the Trump transition team?

4. Do you find it suspicious that the day after the first day of the investigations into the possibly coordination between members of the Trump
campaign and Russian officials, Nunes is called to the WH to view reports?

5. Do you find it suspicious that after being called to view reports, Nunes foregoes protocol the next day and calls a press conference, seemingly
out-of-the-blue, to announce "incidental collection" from reports and the very serious new issue of "unamsking?"

I know you're not an idiot and I'm somewhat sure you're not insane. So clearly, on some level, you have to realize that the repeated lying by the Team
Trump about communications with Russian officials smells funny. I further assume that you have to admit that the Nunes shenanigans and this new
"unmasking" narrative reek of distraction.

6. Have you asked yourself why all the lying from Team Trump and why the need for a distraction to stall the House Intel Comm's investigation?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.